3 ms·
I agree DeepL is often as good or better. (I will sometimes try both and compare. Usually I prefer about half from each, but both are fine on their own.) But De
by abrowne 6y ago
I agree DeepL is often as good or better. (I will sometimes try both and compare. Usually I prefer about half from each, but both are fine on their own.) But DeepL doesn't support nearly as as many languages. Google Translate supports, to pick a few, Basque, Gujarati, Kazakh, Igbo and Thai. Some of those don't have a huge number of speakers, but they also have Arabic, Bengali, Hindi, Indonesian and Swahili, all in the top 20 by number of speakers.
Yes, I know some of these are done through a intermediary (often English, but not always). So if you translate Ukrainian → Catalan it probably really does Ukrainian → Russian → Spanish → Catalan. But it can still be helpful to have the options.
- tomsmeding 6y agoIs there any way to find out what the translation path is that GTranslate takes? Background: I usually find I get better results when I translate from English to a random language X instead of from Y to X -- which is probably because it actually does Y -> English -> X. But I know more languages than Y and English, so it might be helpful to know what the "best" intermediary is, so to speak.
- abrowne 6y agoNot that I know of, except by trying to find mistakes like this: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=47635 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=47635 > Google translates the Japanese word "migaku 磨く" (to polish, to brush) to the French word "polonais" (Polish, as in "of Poland"). Meaning Japanese to French must go through English and get confused by Polish/polish.